A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

P. Katsabanis, O. Omidi, O. Rielo and P. Ross

The Robert M. Buchan Department of Mining
Queens University
Kingston, ON, Canada
Abstract
Selection of delay times to optimize fragmentation has been a controversial topic among researchers and
blasting practitioners. The paper reviews all available experimental information, ranging from small and
medium scale tests in geologic materials to small scale tests at the laboratory and synthetic materials,
simulating rock. Tests have been re-analyzed and discussed in terms of the information they present and
the limitation of the testing environment in representing actual conditions. New results obtained from
blasting experiments in specimens made of a grout have provided a clear picture of the effect of delay on
fragmentation. The grout used has a strength of 60 MPa (8700 psi), density of 2.5 g/cm3 and P-wave
velocity of 4000 m/s (13100 ft/s). Each block was placed in a yoke to eliminate unwanted reflections
and the desired delay was obtained using the appropriate length of detonating cord between holes or submillisecond electronic detonators. Delays ranged from 0.1 ms/m (0.03 ms/ft) of burden to 16 ms/m (4.9
ms/ft) of burden. Fragmentation was obtained using screen analysis of the collected fragments. Delay
time has been shown to be a significant parameter affecting fragmentation and back break. Generally
larger fragments and less back break was observed at short values, while fragmentation somewhat
deteriorated at significant delay times, compared to what was observed at intermediate delay times. The
work is now extended to include the effect of energy partition on fragmentation as well as the effect of
initiation point and coupling ratio.
Introduction
Blasting researchers and blasting engineers have long tried to examine the effect of delay time on
fragmentation. The necessity became evident after the development of the first electronic detonator,
where possible fragmentation improvement would easily justify the increased cost of the detonator.
Todays reality is that the electronic detonator offers many proven benefits to the blaster in terms of
safety, operational efficiency, vibration reduction, consistency of results and has also been associated
with fragmentation improvements in mining blasts. Research however has not been able to establish
definite answers with regard to the choice of delay that will result in significant benefits on
fragmentation and results are often conflicting and controversial. The purpose of this paper is to review
the results of previous tests as well as to present the results of current work on the effect of the delay on
fragmentation, so that blast designer can benefit from lessons learned and the experience accumulated
through years of testing as well as from current testing in well controlled conditions. In the following,
the work by USBM (Stagg, M.S. and Nutting, M.J.,1987; Otterness et al.,1991), Katsabanis and Liu
(1996), Katsabanis et al. (2006), Rossmanith (2002), Vabrabant and Espinosa (2006) and Johansson and

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

1 of 12

Ouchterlony (2013) is summarized before presenting some new findings from work conducted in the
laboratory.
Early work by the USBM
Early fragmentation studies where muck piles were screened have been reported by Stagg and Nutting
(1987) in the case of benches in limestone with a height of 1.15 m (45 in), which were called reduced
scale tests, Stagg and Rholl (1987) in the case of 6.7 m (22 ft) high benches, which were conducted in
horizontally layered limestone and they were called full scale tests and Otterness et al. (1991), which
were conducted in dolomite and were similar to the reduced scale. For the purpose of this paper we
will call the latter tests additional tests. The tests have been analyzed by various researchers, including
the first author of this paper, who concluded that delay influences fragmentation. It is of interest here to
view some results from those early tests. Since a variety of parameters were modified in them, it is
prudent to group similar results together and try to normalize them, as often powder factor and blasting
parameters varied. According to the Kuznetsov equation, the 50% passing size can be expressed as:

x50

Aq

0.8

Q (1/ 6 )

115
s ANFO

19 / 30

f (td )

where x50 is the 50% passing size, A is the rock factor, q is the powder factor (kg/m3), Q is the charge
per hole (kg),

s
ANFO

is the strength relative to ANFO and f(td) is the effect of the delay. Thus a ratio,

x50
q 0.8Q 1/ 6
can be considered as the normalized 50% passing size considering the changes in the powder factor and
borehole charge, which represents the effect of lithology and timing, if any. This would be the factor A
in the traditional Kuznetsov equation of x50. Figure 1 shows the variation of this normalized fragment
size with delay. The reduced scale tests show a trend line from which an optimum delay may be
derived, while the additional tests, whose purpose was to investigate effects other than delay, show that
they belong to the same group as the previous one; however one cannot obtain an optimum due to the
experimental scatter and the short range of delays used. One common observation is that very short
delays in both cases were associated with coarse fragmentation. Figure 2 shows similar results from the
full scale tests. Three observations are worth pointing out:
There is hardly any change on the fragmentation in the larger scale tests, although a weak claim can be
made that the function describing the delay effect seems to be concave up, similar to the reduced scale
tests. The worst delay seems to be the short one although there are very few points to support the claim.
Finally the normalized average range seems to be much lower than that of the small scaled tests,
showing that blasting is easier in the previous case.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

2 of 12

16
Normalized size (factor A)

14
12
10
8

22 ft bench

reduced scale

4
2
0
0

50

100

150

Delay time, ms/m of burden

Figure 1. Effect of delay on Fragmentation (USBM tests)

Normalized average size (factor A)

3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Delay time, ms/m of burden

Figure 2. Effect of delay on fragmentation (large scale tests by USBM)

Work by Katsabanis and Liu (1996)
Katsabanis and Liu (1996) tried to establish the effect of delay in a 2 m (6.5 ft) bench in granite with
burden of 0.8 m (2.6 ft) and 40 mm (1.5 in) diameter charges. The analysis was done using manual
digitization of high speed films. Arguably this method is not very accurate as it penalizes small
fragments and only large differences can be observed. The average size as a function of delay is shown
in Figure 3. It is worthy of mention that at 0 delay the fragmentation consisted of boulders as in the
previous tests, while the optimum delay appears to be close to 8ms/m of burden. Of course the

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

3 of 12

significant error of the analysis does not really allow much confidence in the difference between the
bottom three points. The calculated factor A out of this exercise is much higher than before, ranging
from 34 for the 8 ms delay to 88 for the 0 delay. This is most likely due to the method of observation of
fragmentation which is biased toward the larger fragments.
100
90
Average size, cm

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

12

14

Delay time, ms/m of burden

Figure 3. Effect of delay on the fragmentation in small bench tests by Katsabanis (1996)
Work by Rossmanith (2002)
Rossmanith (2002) explained the complex interaction between stress waves produced by neighboring
holes using Lagrangian diagrams. He simplified each part of the wave by its front and its end, thus each
charge produces a p-wave and a shear wave, both described by their front (PF or SF) and their end (PE
or SE) and a shear wave. The waves interact between the boreholes as well as beyond the boreholes. A
simplified version of Rossmaniths theory will be given in the next section. The interaction becomes
more complex if one describes, in a similar way the outgoing radial fractures. Rossmaniths theory
became the basis for fast initiation times.
Work by Vanbrabant and Espinosa (2006)
Vanbrabant and Espinosa used a simplification of Rossmaniths theory to overlap tensile tails of Pwaves generated by each detonating charge. Their approach is simplified in Figure 4. It is assumed that
any detonating charge will produce a compressional wave pulse, simplified by the compressional front
and the compressional tail, followed by the tensile pulse, which starts at the compressional tail and
finishes at the tensile tail.
The idea here is to achieve maximum superposition of tensile pulses, indicated by the shaded area. This
is controlled by the delay time between boreholes.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

4 of 12

Figure 4. Lagrangian diagram showing superposition of tensile pulses as interpreted by Vabrabant (in
Johansson and Ouchterlony, 2013)
They measured fragmentation using image analysis and claimed a decrease of the 50% passing size by
31-61%. However there is little information on methodology, rock type or blasting practices to allow
any interpretation of their results.
Work in blocks by Katsabanis et al. (2006)
A normal problem in all experimental studies is the variability of rock conditions. To solve the problem
of the inconsistency of the rock, Katsabanis et al. (2006) conducted small scale tests in granodiorite
blocks with dimensions of 92 cm 36 cm 21 cm (36.25 in 14.2 in 8.3 in), where the charge
consisted of detonating cord inside small holes containing water. Blasting was done with multiple rows
of holes with a burden of 8.2 cm (3.2 in) and spacing of 10.2 cm (4.1 in). Since powder factor and
charge per hole were kept constant, the 50% passing size is plotted against time in Figure 5. The
calculated normalized size, for consistency with the previous graphs, is comparatively large. For
example at the delay of 11 mm the ratio x50/(q-0.8Q1/6) is 23.4 suggesting that this type of blasting was
inefficient, considering that the rock was granodiorite which is a medium rock and would have an A
factor close to 10. This inefficiency is a result of decoupling as well as the lack of stemming which
allowed the detonation products to vent very quickly in the atmosphere.
A significant problem with this work is associated with the six free faces of the block, compared to the
maximum three faces of a corner blast. This results in multiple reflections, complicating the analysis of
the results.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

5 of 12

Average particle size, mm

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Delay time, ms/m of burden

Figure 5. Average fragmentation as a function of delay in small scale block tests (Katsabanis et al. 2006)
Work in blocks by Johansson (2013)
Johansson eliminated the problem of multiple reflections using a yoke and conducted similar tests in
blocks of magnetic mortar. His blocks had dimensions of 66 cm 20.5 cm 35 cm (26 in 8 in 13.8
in) and the charge was similarly PETN with a loading of 20g/m (100 grain/ft). Burden was 7 cm (2.76
in) and spacing 10 cm (4 in). Johanssons measurements of the 50% passing size vs. delay time as well
as a similar single measurement in similar conditions but with a longer delay by Petropoulos (2011) are
shown in Figure 6.
The graph is not unlike that of Figures 5 and 1 and it appears that the delay for the smallest average
fragment size has not been reached, at least in the work by Johansson and Ouchterlony (2013).
Unfortunately there is only one point in the longer delay area to make any analysis possible; however if
this single point by Petropoulos is an indication, the optimum delay could be around 3 ms/m of burden.
Current work
Clearly the previous results have been plagued by the following three problems:
1. There is scatter of experimental measurements (all data)
2. There are unwanted edge effects (Katsabanis data)
3. There are very few points covering the entire range of delays that are of interest (Katsabanis,
Johansson).
It was decided to conduct small scale experiments, where there are no issues with rock structure, using a
grout resembling rock, so there is repeatability of conditions and encase the samples into a yoke to
eliminate unwanted reflections, thus simulating a rock bench. The dimension of the test blocks are 60

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

6 of 12

cm 40 cm 25 cm (23.6 in 15.75 in 9.8 in), which were cast using a commercial high strength
grout (Sika 212 SR) with a series of boreholes with a diameter of 12 mm (0.5 in), length of 23 cm (9 in),
in a pattern with a burden of 7.5 cm (3 in) and a spacing of 10.5 cm (4.1 in). The load of each borehole
consisted of two strands of detonating cord, each with a strength of 10g/m (50 grain/ft), resulting in 6.9
g of PETN per hole. The holes were coupled with water prior to the blast.

80
Average particle size, mm

70
60
50
40

Johansson

30

Petropoulos

20
10
0
0

Delay time, ms/m of burden

Figure 6. Fragmentation results in small scale block tests (Johansson and Ouchterlony, 2013;
Petropoulos, 2011)
A variety of delays were used. Delays less than 100 s were obtained using appropriate lengths of
detonating cord between successive holes, considering the velocity of detonation of the cord which was
measured to be 6900 m/s (22600 ft/s). Above 100 s the length of the cord to provide the delay was
excessive, considering the closeness of the holes, requiring placement of a variety of boards between
holes to avoid cut offs. Thus it was decided to use sub-millisecond electronic detonators, which enable
minimum initiation intervals of 0.1 ms.
Experiments were conducted in our 76 m3 (2680 ft3) chamber, which is large enough so that few
fragments travel large enough distances to impact on the walls. Furthermore the floors and walls were
covered with 25 mm (1 in) thick rubber mats to minimize secondary fragmentation due to impact. All
fragments were collected after each experiment and were analyzed by screening in the comminution
laboratory.
The average particle size as a function of the delay time for the test conducted to date is plotted in Figure
7.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

7 of 12

140

Average particle size, mm

120
100
80
q=1.13 kg/m3

60

q=2.26 kg/m3
40
20
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Delay time, mus

Figure 7. Experimental results on small scale tests

The initial powder factor of 1.13 kg/m3 produced large fragments in the range of short delays that were
used. The average fragment exceeded half of the burden, suggesting that the fragmentation is in the form
of dust and boulders. The fit of the Swebrec function (or any function) was poor since, at the larger
sizes, fragmentation loses continuity. An example of this is in Figure 8, where data points above 80mm
are not represented well by the fit and the resulting errors are significant. It was then decided to double
the powder factor and continue the work with a powder factor of 2.26 kg/m3. This is certainly much
higher of the powder factor used in bench blasting applications; however there are significant losses,
which have been discussed earlier.
Examining Figure 7, it is clear, once again, that the worst fragmentation was achieved at the very short
delays. As delay increases, there appears to be a flat part of the x50 delay time curve where the delay
seems to have little effect on the average fragment size, while in the long delays fragmentation
deteriorates.
Other observations relate to back break which was much more significant in the long delays and less
pronounced in the short delays.
Discussion
The various works on the effect of delay time have significant differences but few common points. The
experimental works tend to agree that instantaneous initiation favors the formation of large blocks with
little backbreak. Long delays result in significantly more backbreak and the fragment size is not
optimum. Thus fragmentation is optimized at some intermediate delay. Our latest data indicate that the
delay effect, for the case of the grout tested and the type of blast conducted (top initiation, unstemmed
holes) the optimum delay is between 4 ms and 10 ms per meter of burden. There is little difference on

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

8 of 12

the average size between the delays of the above range but substantial difference in the backbreak which
is significantly less in the smaller delays.
The above conclusion is not in agreement with the analysis of Vabrabant and Espinosa (2006) primarily
and the suggestion of Rossmanith (2002) on the benefits of fast initiation times. However it is in
agreement with other experimental results, has less experimental scatter and the results are not affected
by multiple reflective boundaries other than what would be present in typical open pit blasting.
100
90
80
Passing, %

70
60
50

Experiment

40

Swebrec

30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

Size, mm

Figure 8. Swebrec fit of fragmentation with powder factor of 1.02 kg/m3

It is of interest to understand what are the mechanisms that create fragmentation in our small scale
experiments and by extension in rock blasting. It was decided to examine the difference in the
fragmentation between two identical blocks with the same delay between holes but with copper lined
holes versus unlined holes. Copper lining was achieved using annealed copper pipes 12 mm (0.5 in) in
diameter and thickness of 0.7 mm (0.03). Thus gas penetration into radial boreholes would be inhibited.
The fragment size distributions are given in Figure 9.
Clearly there is a substantial difference between the distributions, suggesting that significant amount of
energy is lost in the case of the copper lined blast. A reasonable explanation is a part of the
fragmentation is due to gas penetration.
Stress wave interaction is described by the Lagrangian diagram of Figure 10. It was assumed that the
compressional front has a velocity of 4000 m/s (13100 ft/s), the compressional tail a velocity of 2000
m/s (6600 ft/s) and the tensional tail 1000 m/s (3300 ft/s). It was also assumed that the duration of the
pulse in compression or tension was 50 microseconds, close to what was measured using carbon resistor
gauges. The latter is not really important as the pulses from successive boreholes are replicated and the

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

9 of 12

attempt is to create maximum tension as the pulses move past consecutive neighboring holes. It appears
that the delay to overlap tensional tails must be around 50 microseconds, which is not close to the delay
that gave the best fragmentation in the experiments.

100
90
80

Passing, %

70
60
50

Copper tubes

40

No copper

30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Size, mm

Figure 9. Difference in the fragmentation of holes with copper liners and normally unlined holes

Thus stress wave interaction may be of importance in creating zones of maximum tension according to
the Lagrange diagrams used earlier, but does not explain fragmentation in the experiments conducted,
which suggest that much longer times are required.
With regard to the length, it appears that delays between 200 and 1000 microseconds give very similar
fragmentation with the former minimizing backbreak. An optimum delay seems to be about 700
microseconds, corresponding to a delay of 10 ms/m (3 ms/ft) of burden. Considering the properties of
the grout, UCS close to 60 MPa (8700 psi) and a P wave velocity of 4000 m/s (13100 ft/s), this may be
in the expected range of delays for medium rocks. According to Cunninghams recommendation
(Cunningham, 2005) the appropriate delay would have been 15.6/4.2=3.7 ms/m (1.1 ms/ft) of burden. In
our case, this delay would have produced slightly coarser fragmentation but less backbreak.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

10 of 12

0.0003

Superposition of tensional pulses from 1st

and 2nd holes

0.00025

Time, s

0.0002

PF1
PE1

0.00015

PF2

Compression from second hole

0.0001

PE2
PF2R

Compression from 1st hole

PE2R
TT1

0.00005

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Distance, m

Figure 10. Lagrangian diagram for stress wave interaction in this work (PF1: front of p-wave from hole
1, PE1: end of p-wave compression from hole 1; PF2: front of p-wave from hole 2 moving left, PE2; end
of p-wave compression from hole 2 moving left; PF2R: front of P-wave from hole 2 moving right;
PE2R: end of p-wave compression from hole 2 moving right; TT1: end of tensional pulse from hole 1)
Conclusion
A series of small scale experiments were conducted to examine the effect of delay on fragmentation.
The experiments simulated bench blasting and were designed to minimize the impact of boundaries on
the reflection of waves. To guarantee repeatability of the blasted medium, a grout formed the block of
the blast. The experiments demonstrated that very short delays result is coarse fragmentation, while a
fairly wide delay window appears to provide acceptable fragmentation. Shorter delays result in less back
break than longer delays, while the overall best delay for the grout used was 10 ms/m of burden. This
compares well with some previous experiments on medium type rocks like limestone, where firm
conclusions could not be derived due to scatter, but contradicts theories supporting the use of very fast
delay times.
References
Cunningham, C.V.B. (2005). The Kuz-Ram fragmentation model - 20 years on. 3rd EFEE Conference
Proc., Brighton, England, pp. 201-210.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

11 of 12

Johanssom, D. and Ouchterlony, F. (2013). Shock wave interactions in rock blasting the use of short
delays to improve fragmentation in model-scale. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. Vol. 46, 1, pp.
1-18.
Katsabanis, P.D. and Liu, L.(1996). .Delay Requirements for Fragmentation Optimization.
Measurement of Blast Fragmentation. Balkema, 1996
Katsabanis, P.D., Tawadrous, A., Braun, A. and Kennedy. C. (2006). Timing effects on the
fragmentation of small blocks of granodiorite. FRAGBLAST International Journal for Blasting and
Fragmentation. Vol. 10, No 1-2, pp. 83-93
Otterness, R.E., Stagg, M.S. and Rholl, S.A. (1991). Correlation of Shot Design Parameters to
Fragmentation. ISEE Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Research. pp. 179-191
Petropoulos, N. (2011). Influence of confinement on fragmentation and investigation of the burden
movement small scale tests. M.Sc. thesis. Lulea University of Technology.
Rossmanith, H.P. (2002). The Use of Lagrangian Diagrams in Precise Initiation Blasting, Part I: Two
Interacting Boreholes. FRAGBLAST International Journal for Blasting and Fragmentation. Vol. 6, No.
1, pp. 104-135
Stagg, M.S. and Nutting, M.J. (1987). Blast Delay Influence on Rock Fragmentation; One-Tenth Scale
Tests. USBM IC 9135. pp. 79-95
Stagg, M.S. and Rholl, S. A. (1987). Effects of Accurate Delays on Fragmentation for Single-Row
Blasting in a 6.7 m (22 ft) Bench. 2nd International Conference on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting,
FRAGBLAST 2. Keystone, Colorado, pp. 210-223.
Vabrabant, F. and Espinosa, A. (2006). Impact of short delays sequence on fragmentation by means of
electronic detonators: theoretical concepts and field validation. Proc. 8th International Symposium on
Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST 8. pp. 236-331.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2014G - A Review of Timing Requirements for Optimization of Fragmentation

12 of 12